My point is if the factions are perfectly balanced in 1v1 why they need to be balanced in 2v2? How are they umbalanced?

...also you'd need to consider the whole asymmetrical balance thing. Certain faction might have to make choices in their tech which would can give them an advantage in one aspect while leaving them vulnerable in another aspect. In team games, the teammate potentially can cover these disadvantages (or in fact any disadvantages, the teching was just an example).

Or another example: I guess you would agree that certain commanders are more useful in team games than in 1v1 and vice versa. This shouldn't be the case when 1v1 balance would perfectly carry over to team games, right?

In WM 2v2 ladder for example 4199 is the number of unique players that play 2v2? You mean that there are out there 4199-2777=1422 players who play more 2v2 or even only 2v2 ? That's the whole brit ladder players.

4199 is just the number of players that played at least 10 ranked 2v2 games as WM and played at least one in the last month. Doesn't say anything about what else they play.

I looked a little bit into this in an old article (from 2016), but I doubt the numbers changed signficantly since then:

The way to read this is: 33% played ONLY axis, 31% played ONLY allies, 5% played ONLY 1v1, 29% played ONLY 1v1 or 2v2, 83% played no 1v1 at all, and so on.

You probably guessed this by now, but the "distance" in this case is not the distance between the tank and its target but rather the distance between the spot where the shot actually lands and an entity (e.g. a specific soldier).

Maybe I should broaden my map bans just to get some faster games. I tend to ban some of the most popular maps.

As far as we know, map vetoes have no influence on the matchmaking. Map vetoes are checked AFTER you have been matched with other players (which occasionally can lead to a situation that you have to play a map you vetoed, basically because the other players all vetoed the other maps in the pool...).

So, your personal choice of vetoes has no impact on how long you have to wait in queue.

Its not always desirable to have a wide open map, some maps are too open and the desirable characteristics like flow of a map can break down. But of course a map can be too constricting in terms of size and tactics, a balance is ideal...

Well, my point was more that different players might prefer different playstyles (and of course everybody assumes that his opinion is objectively correct ). If everybody would feel the same way about what makes a good map, the stats would look quite different.

There are certainly issues related to maps that nobody likes (e.g. greatly imbalanced sides, features that cause problems with the game engine (pathing, etc.)), but a lot of stuff is pretty subjective, really.

AOD is debatable. I dont like the recent addition of shot and sight blockers and the garrison rush to the fuel points. But Rails Kharkov and Minsk are terrible maps that prohibit any flanking and promote static camping and support weapon spam. No thanks.

I have the impression that there are a lot of players that feel this way (at least you can find a lot of similar complaints in the forums). But looking at the numbers for 2v2, seems like that there is a trend that maps that have rather wide frontlines which enable flanking (Moscow, Winnekendonk, Vaux Farmlands) are not as popular.

Obviously I'm speculating (could be other reasons) but it could very well be that the majority actually prefers maps that are somewhat more narrow (maybe because they make it easier to work together with your teammate?), so...

Edit: Obviously, I'm always interested in how Winnekendonk is doing. In 2v2 it is sitting below the average (actually, it was kind of interesting to see that it is comparatively more popular with players with lower ranks, I thought with the relatively exposed cut-offs it would more cater to higher ranked players. Tse...).

Now, somebody suggested that it would be big enough to be a 3v3 map, so I made a 3v3 version of it. I was kind of skeptical about the idea because initially I tried to create a layout where it is hard to lock down a significant portion of the map (at the time Brit Emplacement were generally considered cancer, so...). Players have to concentrate on the resources AND the cut-offs and also have reasonable chances to compete for both sides. So, you have to make decisions, really.

This to some extend goes out of the window with 3 players because suddenly you have enough units to lock down stuff reasonably well. So, I was wondering whether the map would work in 3v3s. Now, turns out, the 3v3 version became the second most played 3v3 map. What do you know...